MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015167160

Sharing Benefits or Enclosure of the Commons? Investigating the Compatibility of Global, National and Local Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Mechanisms in Peru

2009· article· en· W7015167160 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityIndigenousGrassrootsConventionCorporate governanceCommonsSovereigntySustainability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) declared that genetic resources, considered for centuries to be the common heritage of mankind, would become the property of the sovereign state in which they are contained. The Convention also contained a special provision expressing respect for the rights of indigenous communities over their traditional knowledge. In 2002 Peru (a signatory of the CBD) became the first country in the world to enact a national law for Protection of Traditional Knowledge. Prior to this legal regime, customary governance mechanisms of Andean communities have been the primary means of governing the conservation, use and sharing of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The objective of this research project is to understand from the perspective of policy makers involved in the development of this law, as well as from the perspective of community members and a small grassroots NGO, how this law creates both opportunities and constraints for local governance mechanisms."

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207